"NAFTA 2"

Less than a week ago, many of us interested in a possible North American free trade agreement were doubtful if it would get resolved anytime soon. Now it has been announced that there is a deal. Interestingly, after the first day or two, there has been little in the mass media as to what it means.


While it appears as if a number of US companies, specifically the manufacturing sector may benefit from some of the protections built into this "free trade" agreement, there are few real winners. The auto manufacturing sector will remain as productive as before, probably no workers on either side of the border will lose jobs because of the deal but there will not be new jobs developed because of the deal. In fact there will be no new jobs created anywhere. From a Canadian perspective, our managed market system took a bit of a hit and there will be more American dairy and eggs coming into the country, but it is a very small percentage of the total Canadian sales of eggs and dairy. On a positive note there appears to be more protection and pay for low paid workers and perhaps a recognition for the need for more human rights protection. While there are numerous fine point beyond the understanding of any normal person, at the end of the day it was a lot of drama with little substance. Except for clause 32.


Clause 32 says that before Canada ( or the other two countries) commit to a free trade deal with another country - they must show the agreement to their North American partners and if one of the partners does not like the deal - then the new NAFTA deal can be terminated. That is - if Canada engages in a free trade deal with China and the US does not like the deal - then Canada can be cut out of the North America free trade agreement. In other words, if Canada wants to have access to US markets, then we need their permission to sign any future agreements with any country. Have we given up all control of our future trading relationships?


I suspect that no one (in Canada) is that excited by the deal. In fact I would guess that there are a number of people, perhaps including myself who are disappointed that there is a deal. Part of me would have enjoyed seeing Canada say no to the bullying tactics, the insults and the completely inappropriate threats and comments being made by the President. It was rather fun in a perverted way listening to the buffoon to the south of us pontificate on how bad Canadians were and how our terrible dairy farms were causing such problems for US farmers (who are subsided and who use hormones to artificially overproduce their product, thereby causing their own problems). There was , I think, a sense of pride in knowing that we could and would stand up to such a fool. Alas, the Canadian posturing ended and now we have bowed down to the bully. Being the cynic I am, I wonder if the act of standing up to the US negotiators, of saying that we were tough negotiators was as much for the Canadian public's benefit as Trumps loud mouth insults were for his constituents. Maybe it was all a well acted, well scripted show with a predetermine ending.

A why is it called the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement? What was wrong with calling it NAFTA 2?

A Reasonable Punishment - Defined by Whom?

The Canadian news media and some member s of Parliament are all abuzz with the news that Terri-Lynne McClintic , a convicted murderer of an eight year old child, has been transferred to a minimum security, indigenous women's healing lodge. The conservatives are demanding that that decision be debated in Parliament.

Much of the discussion in the media is about the fact that Tori Stafford was so young and therefore had so much life ahead of her. There is no doubt that killing a child is deemed to be a particularly heinous crime, although I am not too sure if it was anymore of a heinous crime than killing, for example, a 22 year old male or a 55 year old woman. Surely the length of sentence or how the convicted murder is treated should not be defined by how we feel about the victim. It strikes me that much of the public's angst both during the trial in 2009 or now was/is driven by our collective urge to value the child. One could argue that this collective urge is all a wee bit hypercritical given the state of our child welfare system and the general lack of concern for children who are struggling with developmental or mental health concerns or children who are living in isolated communities without access to medical care. Clearly we are selective when we decide to value a specific life. The initial hype over the death of Tori Stafford was that it made us feel unsafe.


There is of course, a long standing debate as to what the primary purpose of incarceration is. If it is to safe guard the public from the perpetrators - then I think there is some legitimacy in insuring that Terri-Lynne McClintic does not have access to that public until such time that there is a reasonable assurance that she will not offend again. If the reason for her confinement is to act as a deterrent to others who are considering such as crime, there is little proof that the fear of incarceration is an effective strategy to stop crime. If the purpose of imprisonment is to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation - one would need to significantly enhance the budgets of prisons - there is little indication that the rehabilitation programs as they presently exist are effective. The final reason why the state incarcerates individuals is to punish them. It would seem to me that anger over McClintic's transfer to a place with low level of security and a more relaxed environment has far more to do with people's dissatisfaction that she has not been punished harshly enough.


There is however, a more serious issue being raised by this debate. That is - who gets to decided how prisoners are treated? Is it a matter of public debate where social media and clever writers can manipulate our concerns or fears? Should we let politicians, people who on occasion have been known to shamelessly pander to the lowest common denominator, to do anything to get the voters attention - make the decision on a case by case basis. Perhaps we should decide the length and type of incarceration by public debate - when someone decides which cases are worthy of our attention. The fact is that the majority of politicians and the public, lack the training, the skills or in many cases, the attention span to deal with the complex issues of how prisoners are treated, assisted or confined .We would perhaps be better served if ensure we created and maintained a public civil service that have the tools and the supports necessary to do the job well.


I live in a country where there is a system of laws and consequences attached to those who break those laws. If I do not like the laws, I can lobby for changes on the laws or consequences on a systemic basis. But I do not have the right to, on a case by case basis get to decide when the policies, regulations and laws can be applied. I do not want to live in a country where such policies, regulations and laws are applied based solely on the whim of some active social media types and a handful of politicians who see the opportunity for some political gain.